?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Abolishing the Electorial College



A Dubious Electoral Idea

By David S. Broder
Thursday, April 5, 2007; A17

When it comes to persistence in pursuit of a political goal, no one can beat Birch Bayh.

It has been almost 40 years since the former Democratic senator from Indiana became the prime sponsor of a constitutional amendment for direct popular election of the president. The measure to abolish the electoral college passed the House but lost in the Senate in 1970 and again in 1979.

Bayh, now a Washington lawyer (and father of Evan Bayh, currently representing Indiana in the Senate), has never abandoned the cause. This year, he has been an unpaid but effective lobbyist in Annapolis, helping persuade the Maryland legislature to become the first in the country to endorse a plan that would -- if it succeeded -- achieve direct election of the president without the need for a constitutional amendment.

The National Popular Vote Plan, as it is known, has passed both houses of the Maryland legislature and is headed for signing by Gov. Martin O'Malley.

The scheme, invented by John R. Koza, a Stanford professor, relies on the provision of the Constitution giving legislatures the power to "appoint" their presidential electors. If legislatures in enough states to make up a majority of the electoral college -- 270 electoral votes -- pledge to commit those votes to the candidate winning the national popular vote, no constitutional amendment is needed. Bayh and other high-minded individuals, such as former Illinois Republican representative John B. Anderson, a one-time independent presidential candidate, support the plan, arguing that it is a perfect expression of 21st-century democracy, while the electoral college is a relic of 18th-century thought.

All votes should count equally, no matter where they are cast, they say. Bayh told the Maryland legislators that Baltimore and Indianapolis voters are ignored by the presidential candidates because they live in states where one party dominates (Republicans in Indiana; Democrats in Maryland), while small-town voters in Ohio and Wisconsin are flooded with attention simply because their states are closely contested.

What is worse, they say, the electoral college made George W. Bush the winner in 2000 although Al Gore got half a million more votes, and such a result could happen again. Those arguments have persuaded a wide variety of others, including the New York Times editorial page and columnist E.J. Dionne Jr., to sign on to the plan.

The sincerity and stubborn persistence of Bayh and the others notwithstanding, this is a questionable proposition. No one knows what the abandonment of a federal principle -- voting by state for the highest officer in the land -- would mean for American politics and government.

The two-party system that is the underpinning of our form of representative government is supported by the electoral college, which gives each party a reliable base of support and forces them to compete fiercely for swing voters in places where they are of roughly equal strength. That mix of stability and uncertainty is the formula for healthy politics, and changing the formula should not be done casually.

A direct election scheme almost certainly would boost the already astronomical cost of presidential campaigns. It would probably offer new temptation for self-financed millionaires to run as independents, knowing that their major-party opponents would no longer have any assurance of electoral advantage.

With no runoff provision possible under this scheme, would fringe candidates be able to bargain for commitments as the price for staying out of the race? Would a Ralph Nader or a Pat Buchanan or a George Wallace have less leverage -- as Bayh contends -- or more?

These are serious questions. When Bayh's constitutional amendment was being debated in Congress, the seemingly simple argument for direct democracy was tested by consideration of the many unintended consequences of switching to a national popular vote. Senators asked what it would do to rural and urban constituencies, small states and large, minority populations and the two-party system. In the final vote in the Senate in 1979, it was defeated by a coalition of Northern liberals and Southern conservatives in Bayh's own party as well as Republicans, all of whom found things to dislike.

Those issues need airing again before such a change is made. They were not debated seriously in the Maryland legislature, and they are not likely to be in others. That's why this scheme for bypassing the amendment process is -- despite its honorable sponsorship -- a really dubious proposition.

davidbroder@washpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402254_pf.html


I've thought for years the EC should be abolished. It made sense 200 years ago when vote counting took forever, travel was difficult, and communications were poor. Those are no longer issues today. (Well, vote counting can still take a while in close races.)

People complain because Americans don't vote. But when you think about it, it's not hard to see why we don't. I half-joked that the votes I cast last November for governor and Congress were the first votes I had ever cast that actually meant anything. I've always lived in states that were either strongly Republican or Democrat. What difference did it made if Bush won my home state by 200,000 votes or 199,999?

Interesting fact I found while researching the EC...
"In fact, it is possible for a candidate to not get a single person's vote -- not one -- in 39 states or the District of Columbia, yet be elected president by wining the popular vote in just 11 of these 12 states:

California
New York
Texas
Florida
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Ohio
Michigan
New Jersey
North Carolina
Georgia
Virginia

There are 538 total votes in the Electoral College and a presidential candidate must win a majority -- 270 -- electoral votes to be elected. Since 11 of the 12 states in the chart above account for exactly 270 votes, a candidate could win these states, lose the other 39, and still be elected. Of course, a candidate popular enough to win California or New York will almost certainly win some smaller states, as well. But, when you play with popularity and numbers, anything can happen."

2000 wasn't the first time that someone won the EC without winning the popular vote. It happened in 1876 (Rutherford B. Hayes) and 1888 (Benjamin Harrison).

Comments

( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
(Anonymous)
Apr. 5th, 2007 04:47 pm (UTC)
You're right, Broder's not...
Broder is so offensive in how he talks about state legislators. This issue was seriously debated in Maryland, and his side lost. So it goes. He's in the minority in public opinion on this one everywhere, actually, and is wrong to boot! National Popular Vote (www.nationalpopularvote.com) has a lot more on the issue.
jevim
Apr. 6th, 2007 04:51 am (UTC)
Thirty Thousand
Why does the average House district have 660 thousand citizens when the Constitution says that the minimum for a district is 30 thousand? (And, yes, this goes somewhere.)

The average district size passed 60 thousand with the 1840 census. I find that number interesting, in it means that there must be districts with more than 60 thousand residents, and that should have been split to two districts, but they weren't. Any number under 60 thousand can just be caused by quantization; after further growth, the average district size could drop as more districts were added. But in 1840, it went over 60 thousand for good.

I further find that date interesting, as 60 some years after the founding, I don't think the Founding Fathers nor many of their contemporaries were still guiding the government. The House has to vote on any increase in its size; any increase in its sizes dilutes the power of those Representatives already elected. There is no check on this power, and the Representatives have used it to create powerful positions for themselves.

This further shows itself in the results of the Electoral College. If there was a Representative per 30 thousand people, then the College's results would mirror the popular vote more closely. If other states follow the proportional electoral vote system of Maine and Nebraska, it would be almost identical. And, yes, States could choose electors based on the national vote.

But if we had more Representatives, as allowed for in the Constitution, we might not have had the same result in 2000. Such comment, though, is no reason not to fix the problem for the future.
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

March 2011
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars